Is the CF formatting after the firmware update really necessary, or removing the firmware file is enough?

Wondering about the same thing.

It isn't strictly necessary to format the CF (or SD) card after updating the firmware; you could just as easily remove the card from the camera, insert it into your PC's card reader, and there delete the firmware update file from the card.

I think Canon stipulates this instruction, as it's the simplest, safest and most straightforward method for ensuring that the firmware update file is removed from the card, and that the card is made ready for capturing more images / video, all without needing to remove the card from the camera.

When I put one of my cards into a card reader after capturing images to it, it has two folders, one containing images and a second named CANON_MISC (or something similar). I don't know if these folders are created during the format process, or when the first image is captured; I've never taken the time to check. But if they are created during the format process, it would be another reason for following Canon's recommended procedure, rather than, say, putting the card into your PC's card reader and formatting it there.

It doesn't really matter if it is there or not anyway as far as I've ever seen. Unless you go to the update firmware menu the camera seems to ignore the file.

I've been reading this forum for a while and finally decided to post something today... something weird :Yesterday, right after the 1.2.1 firmware update, my 5D III set the micro adjustments to -8 (in the option for all the lenses). It was set to 0 before.By the way, I'm not using the general MA option. I'm using specific MA per lens, which are set between +7 and +10 depending on the lens mounted on the body.

That sounded weird to me so I made a couple of tests with my 50L. And it seems that my +10 MA settings lead constantly to out of focus pictures.I made tests with MA set to 0 and even to -8 and it appeared to be much better !

So now I'm wondering what Canon meant by "Fixes a phenomenon in which the camera changes the AF microadjustment value to -8." ?

I'm testing my other lenses today...

Thanks for reading.Bruno

I don't think so, mine still report normal numbers. It was supposed to stop them from all getting set to -8. Maybe that bug got trigger right as you were changing firmware and then 1.2.1 simply kept the -8 in tact.

HDMI won't work, Canon's HDMI out basically can't display that much detail; it's limited to 8bit, requires "debayering", 4:2:2 "sub-sampling", and needs to resize that 2K image down to 1920x1080. Once you do all that "compressing" guess what we're left with? Yep the 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed (not RAW) image that Canon just gave us with this update.

Not so sure about that. Those DNG frames look a lot crisper don't they?

1. Those DNG are not true RAW are they?They are already de-bayered. No loss there.2. As you say only 1920x1080 of the frame was valid info anyway. So no loss there.3. Even if you lose the 4:4:4 and 14bits (not that canon seems to be 14bits to start though) won't we still retain all that extra crispness at least?

I have noticed a very useful way to use Tv in low light situations. If I set Safety shift to ISO, I'm able to balance flash to available light. I can set iso as 100 and shutter speed as I want. In low light I would use big appertures anyways, so its okay if camera will set it itself. Now if that shutter speed isn't possible with maximum aperture and iso 100, camera will raise iso. That's very cool feature and I wish Av would work same way if I use minimum shutter speed in auto iso menu. It works perfectly without flash, but with flash its fixed to iso400.

Anyways, could some one test how Tv+safety shift+flash works in new firmware. Just to be sure I'm able to use this nice feature in future too.

I tested it, it works with the new firmware.Thanks for the tip, this could make things much easier for me, I hate the fact that Auto ISO is locked at 400 with flash in AV...

HDMI won't work, Canon's HDMI out basically can't display that much detail; it's limited to 8bit, requires "debayering", 4:2:2 "sub-sampling", and needs to resize that 2K image down to 1920x1080. Once you do all that "compressing" guess what we're left with? Yep the 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed (not RAW) image that Canon just gave us with this update.

Not so sure about that. Those DNG frames look a lot crisper don't they?

1. Those DNG are not true RAW are they?They are already de-bayered. No loss there.2. As you say only 1920x1080 of the frame was valid info anyway. So no loss there.3. Even if you lose the 4:4:4 and 14bits (not that canon seems to be 14bits to start though) won't we still retain all that extra crispness at least?

I am not sure what you mean but Magic Lantern's 14bit DNGs do not compete with HDMI. Yes the DNGs are sharper because they are not compressed down like the HDMI image is. The part of my post that you quoted is explaining why we can't send the 14bit DNG through the HDMI out as a 14bit RAW image (this HDMI can't handle that much detail) and that is why I think what Canon is giving us is the best its HDMI port can do.

1. DNG and CR2 are the same, both use the same lossless RAW algorithm and both are not de-bayered. The De-bayering is preformed in your computer (usually automatically) with a viewer or editor that supports De-bayering.

2. Unfortunately we can't send that 2K RAW image through HDMI and even if we could the 1920x1080 portion is offset to the upper right so without cropping and resizing the HDMI would likely keep a black bar on the left and bottom but cutoff the right and top sides of the actual image.

3. Canon starts with 14bit RAW images for video (that's the nice sharp DNGs we're getting), but reducing that down to 8bit loses about 2 stops of dynamic range and potentially causes banding in fine gradients (usually the sky). lowering the 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 will cause a 50% loss of sharpness (crispness) and 4:2:0 will cause a 75% loss.

I just talked to CPS Hollywood the other day and got into a conversation about what 3rd party accessories I should get, and they warned me not to use any 3rd party batteries because they might blow up in camera, I told them I've been using Canon DSLRs with only 3rd party batteries for about 10 years and not only have I never had that happen but I've also never heard about it either but the lady insisted that they have seen it...

I don't mean to be an alarmist but now with this extra warning in camera about 3rd party batteries and the fact they tweaked the camera to misread some chipped 3rd party batteries I can't help to wonder if they did something that might make this happen :/ like no longer restricting something on the higher capacity aftermarket battery. I've had batteries from other stuff blow up on me before (an Apple Macbook, an Avid portable M-Audio recorder and a few cellphones) they just bloat up and no longer work.

This is probably just some marketing trick to scare me into giving them more money but I wouldn't surprised. (who the hell is running Canon now a days anyway?)

HDMI won't work, Canon's HDMI out basically can't display that much detail; it's limited to 8bit, requires "debayering", 4:2:2 "sub-sampling", and needs to resize that 2K image down to 1920x1080. Once you do all that "compressing" guess what we're left with? Yep the 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed (not RAW) image that Canon just gave us with this update.

Not so sure about that. Those DNG frames look a lot crisper don't they?

1. Those DNG are not true RAW are they?They are already de-bayered. No loss there.2. As you say only 1920x1080 of the frame was valid info anyway. So no loss there.3. Even if you lose the 4:4:4 and 14bits (not that canon seems to be 14bits to start though) won't we still retain all that extra crispness at least?

I am not sure what you mean but Magic Lantern's 14bit DNGs do not compete with HDMI. Yes the DNGs are sharper because they are not compressed down like the HDMI image is. The part of my post that you quoted is explaining why we can't send the 14bit DNG through the HDMI out as a 14bit RAW image (this HDMI can't handle that much detail) and that is why I think what Canon is giving us is the best its HDMI port can do.

The HDMI port on it can do 1920x1080. What is compressed about HDMI? You can hook a computer to a TV through HDMI and the computer signal going over HDMI is not compressed at all.14bits the HDMI probably can't handle, so the depth resolution would have to be less, down to at least 10bits I think and quite possibly 8bits, but the spatial resolution could retain the full DNG stream sharpness.

(that said the 1.2.1 actually does appear to be a bit sharper than the old firmware, either over HDMI or compressed internally, at least, which is good)

Quote

1. DNG and CR2 are the same, both use the same lossless RAW algorithm and both are not de-bayered. The De-bayering is preformed in your computer (usually automatically) with a viewer or editor that supports De-bayering.

But the Bayer sensor is 22MP and these are 2MP so unless they are just reading a non-bayered mini-block, which they aren't something sort of de-bayer must be done already. Look at sRAW and mRAW they are are not in the original complete Bayer state and they are stored in a RAW file too.

Quote

2. Unfortunately we can't send that 2K RAW image through HDMI and even if we could the 1920x1080 portion is offset to the upper right so without cropping and resizing the HDMI would likely keep a black bar on the left and bottom but cutoff the right and top sides of the actual image.

You might have to clip off the left and right side junk and send an offset address so it starts reading it below the top junk. You wouldn't even have to do that if the HDMI accepts an offset to get to each new lines address. I have no idea how it is setup, it might have something like that so no clipping is needed at all. COnsidering how many modes it can put out that might very well be the case.

Quote

3. Canon starts with 14bit RAW images for video (that's the nice sharp DNGs we're getting), but reducing that down to 8bit loses about 2 stops of dynamic range and potentially causes banding in fine gradients (usually the sky). lowering the 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 will cause a 50% loss of sharpness (crispness) and 4:2:0 will cause a 75% loss.

cutting chroma resolution doesn't hit perceived resolution nearly that hard, the luminance resolution is still fullbut yeah obviously going over HDMI unless it was HDMI with 10bit support it would lose a bunch of DR

I've been reading this forum for a while and finally decided to post something today... something weird :Yesterday, right after the 1.2.1 firmware update, my 5D III set the micro adjustments to -8 (in the option for all the lenses). It was set to 0 before.By the way, I'm not using the general MA option. I'm using specific MA per lens, which are set between +7 and +10 depending on the lens mounted on the body.

That sounded weird to me so I made a couple of tests with my 50L. And it seems that my +10 MA settings lead constantly to out of focus pictures.I made tests with MA set to 0 and even to -8 and it appeared to be much better !

So now I'm wondering what Canon meant by "Fixes a phenomenon in which the camera changes the AF microadjustment value to -8." ?

I'm testing my other lenses today...

Thanks for reading.Bruno

I don't think so, mine still report normal numbers. It was supposed to stop them from all getting set to -8. Maybe that bug got trigger right as you were changing firmware and then 1.2.1 simply kept the -8 in tact.

The HDMI port on it can do 1920x1080. What is compressed about HDMI? You can hook a computer to a TV through HDMI and the computer signal going over HDMI is not compressed at all.14bits the HDMI probably can't handle, so the depth resolution would have to be less, down to at least 10bits I think and quite possibly 8bits, but the spatial resolution could retain the full DNG stream sharpness.

(that said the 1.2.1 actually does appear to be a bit sharper than the old firmware, either over HDMI or compressed internally, at least, which is good)

I don't understand. 4:2:2 and 8bit are forms of image compression, and I don't think these HDMI ports can't produce higher color depth or sub-sampling than that. When Canon says "uncompressed" they mean no frame or resolution compressions, but there is still chroma compression. Your HDMI signal from a computer is most likely compressed, since HDTVs use rec.709 which is 8bit and there is no point in an 8bit DNG.

Quote

1. DNG and CR2 are the same, both use the same lossless RAW algorithm and both are not de-bayered. The De-bayering is preformed in your computer (usually automatically) with a viewer or editor that supports De-bayering.

But the Bayer sensor is 22MP and these are 2MP so unless they are just reading a non-bayered mini-block, which they aren't something sort of de-bayer must be done already. Look at sRAW and mRAW they are are not in the original complete Bayer state and they are stored in a RAW file too.

When I say CR2 I mean RAW which is not de-bayered in camera. sRAW and mRAW are not really raw, they have been de-bayered and sub-sampled at 4:4:4 in camera then to a smaller resolution by averaging the formed 'pixels' and then losslessly compressed with CR2 but information has already been lost compared a pure CR2 raw file. You may be right that the same process might have already been used for these 1931 x 1088 14bit RAW images Magic Lantern found, but it is unlikely. The images require a program that applies de-bayering to view them and most people agree that video resolutions are achieved by line skipping (Canon has even admitted to it) or in this case combining 'sensel' data in 3x3 blocks before any processing (de-bayering) is done. Also Panasonic has admitted that they "bind their pixels in 2x2 block before any processing is done" then (like the sRAW files) they process them into YCrCb and down to the appropriate resolution before sending it to the h.264 encoder.

Quote

You might have to clip off the left and right side junk and send an offset address so it starts reading it below the top junk. You wouldn't even have to do that if the HDMI accepts an offset to get to each new lines address. I have no idea how it is setup, it might have something like that so no clipping is needed at all. COnsidering how many modes it can put out that might very well be the case.

hmm, my point is that HDMI (especially the one's in these Canon DSLRs) don't support resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the 2K image needs to be down-resed or cropped and positioned (like the Canon official firmware already does)

Quote

cutting chroma resolution doesn't hit perceived resolution nearly that hard, the luminance resolution is still fullbut yeah obviously going over HDMI unless it was HDMI with 10bit support it would lose a bunch of DR

Ah you're right, a lot of the sharpness will be held in the luminance (duh) but not even the C100 and C300 support 10bit HDMI so I doubt they included a 10bit HDMI port here.

I don't understand. 4:2:2 and 8bit are forms of image compression, and I don't think these HDMI ports can't produce higher color depth or sub-sampling than that.

All HDMI does 4:4:4 no sweat.

Higher levels of HDMI do deep color. I think starting with HDMI 1.2 10bit and even 12bit are supported. It's certainly possible that the 5D3 has an older HDMI maybe 1.1 or such and doesn't support above 8bits.

It is true that those are forms of image compression, I was referring to motion compression though, like h.264/mpeg2/etc. sort of compression.

Quote

When Canon says "uncompressed" they mean no frame or resolution compressions, but there is still chroma compression.

Yeah, that is what I meant. No motion/frame compression.

Quote

Your HDMI signal from a computer is most likely compressed, since HDTVs use rec.709 which is 8bit and there is no point in an 8bit DNG.

I don't think REC709 has anything to do with bit depth. It just sets tone transfer functions and primary locations AFAIK. Most HDTV don't quite match REC709 primaries, most undershoot at least some of the primaries a bit, although it is the assumed goal that they will be at least somewhat reasonably close.

And setting the tone response curve part of the spec to REC709 TRC on the set itself looks awful since they process the movies assuming the destination space will actually be more like Gamma 2.2.

Virtually no HDTV or monitors are more than 8bit displays (although some have up to at least 14bits color engines inside so you have room to calibrate without banding and the fancy ones with 3D 4bit LUTs and stuff that are wide gamut can even shift around color spaces and primary locations and so on and you get it all done while retaining perfect saturation curves and everything) are there are few that internally dither to 10bits if sent 10bit signal (such as NEC PA series I believe, some claim that some of them may be 100% true 10bits though, not sure, I don't have a 10bit video card to test it) and a very few that I think actually truly can show 10bits (HP Dreamcolor maybe?? not sure). I think some super fancy scientific and perhaps broadcast ones may be true 10bit or even 12bit, very esoteric monitors, not sure.

Most video cards don't put out more than 8bits so nothing is getting compressed even in a bit depth sense on HDMI out and all these monitors support full chroma resolution. HDMI does 4:4:4 so nothing gets compressed over that (unless you specifically set the computer to compress that). In regular modes many HDTV take the 4:4:4 input and chop it to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 though. Lots of them have PC modes and such where you can get around that and they retain 4:4:4 pathways.

Quote

When I say CR2 I mean RAW which is not de-bayered in camera. sRAW and mRAW are not really raw, they have been de-bayered and sub-sampled at 4:4:4 in camera then to a smaller resolution by averaging the formed 'pixels' and then losslessly compressed with CR2 but information has already been lost compared a pure CR2 raw file. You may be right that the same process might have already been used for these 1931 x 1088 14bit RAW images Magic Lantern found, but it is unlikely.

They have to have something done to them because we have 22MP Bayer sensor and yet these are 1931x1088 and we know that the FOV of them is way wider than a huge crop factor would be so there is no way they can be untouched. At the least they would have to have been debayered insome sense and then rebayered I'd think, which would seem strange. I haven't looked inside the files though to see what is there yet.

Also if that 1931x1088 is in Bayer format then it's not really a true 4:4:4 you can get out of it anyway since Bayer format is not full chroma resolution by definition.

Quote

The images require a program that applies de-bayering to view them and most people agree that video resolutions are achieved by line skipping (Canon has even admitted to it) or in this case combining 'sensel' data in 3x3 blocks before any processing (de-bayering) is done.

Well the non-5D3/1DX cameras certainly do a ton of line skipping. The 5D3 does vastly less or none and thus it gets that near 2 stops SNR boost over the 5D2 from that alone, it is not tossing away all those extra samples.Combing the blocks and matching to adjacent is processing and taking the initial bayer setup and doing all sorts of stuff to it.

Quote

Also Panasonic has admitted that they "bind their pixels in 2x2 block before any processing is done" then (like the sRAW files) they process them into YCrCb and down to the appropriate resolution before sending it to the h.264 encoder.

I think Canon said the C100 series uses 2x2 blocks too.

Quote

Quote

You might have to clip off the left and right side junk and send an offset address so it starts reading it below the top junk. You wouldn't even have to do that if the HDMI accepts an offset to get to each new lines address. I have no idea how it is setup, it might have something like that so no clipping is needed at all. COnsidering how many modes it can put out that might very well be the case.

hmm, my point is that HDMI (especially the one's in these Canon DSLRs) don't support resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the 2K image needs to be down-resed or cropped and positioned (like the Canon official firmware already does)

Yeah you can't send the full DNG straight over HDMI but you might not need to clip off the top/bottom/sides and then rewrite to the buffer and then send. The top and bottom don't matter since you could just give it the address of where the image part starts instead of the address at the top left and it will end at 1080 and won't read the bottom junk. The left and ride sides, might need to be clipped. But it is quite possible that there is an offset value that says jump so and so many bytes to get to the next line and it could be adjusted to automatically skip over the left and right junk. If you have programmed graphics hardware at the register level such things may be familiar. I don't know how the system is setup in this case.

Quote

Ah you're right, a lot of the sharpness will be held in the luminance (duh) but not even the C100 and C300 support 10bit HDMI so I doubt they included a 10bit HDMI port here.

Very probably true (although it's not impossible they use HDMI 1.2 parts since so much stuff these days does, maybe it's mostly what is even made these days and they get better deals on big batches??? no clue, quite possible not though).